We’re all on information overload these days. So much seems to be coming at us from all sides. Worse yet, it’s very hard to tell if the information we’re absorbing is accurate. And it can be even worse if you have a disability, because you’re more likely to be isolated and not as able to access the people or documents that can help you work towards the truth.

Speaking of disabilities, one of the areas rife with misinformation is the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) and other laws designed to help people with disabilities get as fair a shake as possible in our society. That is why I am writing this series about some of the most common mistaken beliefs about these laws.

Today, I’m going to shed some light on the myth that an employer cannot fire an employee with a disability.

MYTH
If an employee with a disability cannot do her job, the employer cannot fire her but has to hire someone extra or make other employees do the work.

TRUTH
Like with anyone else, an individual with a disability does not have an automatic right to stay in a job unless she can actually perform it.

But the ADA is different from other discrimination laws in this respect: If an otherwise qualified employee needs reasonable accommodation in order to perform the essential functions of the job, the employer must provide the accommodation unless it would result in an undue hardship to the employer or cause a fundamental alteration in the workplace.

EXAMPLE
An office receptionist with a spinal deformity cannot sit for more than an hour or so at a time. It would probably be a reasonable accommodation for the employer to let him get up and stretch his legs for a few minutes every hour. This would allow him to do the job, and would result in little or no cost to the employer. But if his condition worsened to the point where he often had to leave his desk in the middle of customer calls, it would likely become an undue hardship for the employer to tolerate this situation.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION
As previously discussed, the ADA challenges both employers and employees to put fresh eyes on workplace tasks and determine whether they can be done in an effective (and possibly non-traditional) way. The law also requires that employers and employees work together to determine the best way for that to happen.

In this case, one option might be for the employer to purchase a desk that allows the employee to stand up as needed to do the job. Another might be to supply a cot or couch where the employee can answer the phone for part of the day. There are many potential solutions to this problem, and one of the best places to find them is at a government website called the JOB ACCOMODATION NETWORK. https://askjan.org

Joe Shapiro just shared an astonishing and horrendous news article on Facebook. It’s about a female inmate who appeared in court to answer criminal charges. She had a respiratory disease and had asked the judge to let her use her breathing apparatus. But the judge, astonishingly, denied her request. A few days later, she died.

Who knows what’s true anymore? Is the above photo a joke or would an airline really have to allow an “emotional support elephant” on a flight?

Spoiler alert: The photo is obviously a joke. But there really is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there about what our disability laws require. So in the next few posts, I am going to try to correct some of these “urban legends” that add to the already misleading view of people with disabilities.

Myth:The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to hire people with disabilities, even if they are not the most qualified applicants for a job.

Fact: The ADA specifically states that it does not prevent employers from hiring the most qualified person for a position. What it does prohibit, however, is employers imposing job requirements that BOTH screen out people with disabilities AND are not “essential functions” of the job.

Example: A law office needs to hire a legal assistant. That person’s job is to do legal research and draft court pleadings. Occasionally, that person may be asked to drive to the courthouse and file papers, but there are plenty of other people around who could do that if s/he were not available.

Andrea applies for the job and would be the leading candidate, were it not for the fact that she has a nerve disorder that prevents her from driving. If the employer decides not to hire her for this reason, the employer might be violating the ADA, because it is not essential that Andrea be able to do that task.

But let’s change the facts a bit: This is a small office and the legal assistant must be depended on to file court papers on a regular basis. In that case, it would probably be legal for the employer to pass over Andrea, because she would be unable to perform the essential functions of the position.

As is clear, phrases like “essential functions” and “job descriptions” become crucial in analyzing these kinds of cases. And the ADA requires that each situation be judged on its own facts, to determine the meaning of these phrases in each particular setting.

So essentially, the ADA is requiring employers (and everyone) to free ourselves from outdated and unwarranted assumptions. And that would be a desirable step forward, even without the law.

For more information, to to the “employment” link on this website or to www.ada.gov.

I love including emojis in my emails. If somone is taking a trip, I’ll often insert a plane or train. If they have accomplished something, I’ll sometimes insert some people dancing and clapping.

Emojis do more than give clues about the writer’s state of mind – they provide a whole extra layer of communication to a very limited medium.

When one peruses the thousands of available emojis, they will find “people” of all different races and cultures, and a seemingly infinite amount of sports, dancing and other activities. But when I was recently looking for something symbolizing a person with a disability, I found only ONE: the above, very familiar (and dare I say boring?) symbol of someone in a wheelchair.

That’s why it was so encouraging to read the Huffington Post article below. It describes a number of new emojis that are being considered for distribution. And for the first time, they all feature people with disabilities.

Is this a big deal? Probably not. But anything that encourages inclusion (rather than stigmatization) deserves at least a smiley face🙂.

Well, nothing – unless you happen to be an individual with mobility and/or balance problems. Then, this scene could quickly turn into a nightmare.

More realistically, we probably just wouldn’t go to whatever this game is. Then we would lose the opportunity to have a pleasant evening, contribute to the economy and be more integrated into mainstream society.

This and thousands of similar scenes are part of the reason the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) was enacted in 1990.

The ADA defines sports arenas as public accommodations (see the “public accommodations” link on this site). As such, they are required to accommodate people with disabilities, as long as that accommodation does not create an undue burden.

So what might “accommodation” look like in this scenario? It could be a number of different things: installing hand railings, designating certain seats outside of this area for people with disabilities and their companions, providing physical assistance with getting up and down the stairs, etc.

In 2011, new regulations were issued that clarify much of what the law requires, as well as practical examples of what compliance might look like. Those regulations are in the link below.

Even though Jim Abbott was born without a right hand, he won a gold medal for the 1988 U.S. Olympic baseball team and threw a no- hitter for the New York Yankees. Curtis Pride and Pete Gray, both outfielders, are deaf. And John Lester and Anthony Rizzo, Chicago Cubs and cancer survivors, recently presented their long-suffering fans with a World Series title.

They and other baseball players with disabilities were honored in 2015 by Topps Baseball Cards. In commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Topps launched a series of baseball cards honoring players with disabilities.

“People with disabilities are often looked at for what they can’t do instead of being appreciated for what they can do…Imagine if a child or the parent of a child with a disability, by simply opening a pack of baseball cards, discovers that one or their heroes was legally blind or deaf or has battled cancer? They should truly feel empowered and encouraged,” said the Cubs’ medical director Mark O’Neal.

And just a few days ago, the Kansas City Royals signed the first baseball player with autism.

Baseball has a long and proud history of being among the first American institutions to break civil rights barriers. They did it with Jackie Robinson and other racial minorities, and they have also done it with players with disabilities.

Of course, baseball is dimished if people can’t watch it. So in my next post, I’ll talk about the progress made in allowing spectators with disabilities into baseball games.

See the two USA Today articles below (as well as Joe Shapiro’s facebook page) for more information.